BY: WILLIAM D. SLICKER
In 2024, I wrote an article entitled “AI Hallucinations-Just Say “No” that was published in The Florida Bar Family Law Section’s “Commentator.”[i]
In that article, I explained that: “If an internet user makes a request of an artificial intelligence program, the user expects a correct output or answer to the input prompt. However, sometimes A.I. algorithms do not find a correct response and the program ‘hallucinates’ a made-up incorrect response.”[ii]
At the time of my prior article, there were only a few courts that had published opinions about the use of AI fabricated cases and the sanctions imposed on the attorneys or the pro ses who had cited to AI fabricated cases in their briefs or motions. That is no longer the situation. Unfortunately, the problem, and the opinions about it, have proliferated. The sanctions are becoming harsher and more creative as time goes by.
The most reported case was from New York where attorney Steven Schwartz used ChatGPT for his research to generate an Affirmation in Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss. “The Affirmation in Opposition cited and quoted from purported judicial decisions that were said to be published in the Federal Reporter, the Federal Supplement, and West Law.”[iii] However, the court conducted its own research and was unable to find multiple cases cited in the Affirmation of Opposition.
Mr. Schwartz testified that he was operating under the false perception that this website (ChatGPT) could not possibly be fabrication cases on its own. “I thought ChatGPT was finding the case somewhere. Maybe unpublished. Maybe it was appealed. Maybe access was difficult to find. I just never thought it would be made up.”[iv] The court was not favorably impressed and employed Federal Rule 11 to impose a sanction of $5,000.00 on Mr. Schwartz and the attorney who signed off as the attorney for record who filed the Affirmation of Opposition.
Many other attorneys have followed in Mr. Schwartz missteps. Here, in Florida, attorney J. Tony Lopez filed a brief that quoted language from opinions 14 times that did not appear in those opinions and cited a case that did not exist.[v] The court referred Mr. Lopez to the Florida Bar for appropriate disciplinary proceedings.[vi]
In the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida, attorneys David Alvarez and Robert Twombly were referred to the District’s Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions Peer Review and Attorney Grievance for investigation of their conduct and also referred to the Florida Bar for citing to two cases that did not exist and misquoting other cases.[vii]
Also in the U.S. District court in the Southern District of Florida, California attorney Timothy Lord appearing pro hac vice and Florida attorney Joel Bello submitted a Response to a motion which contained an AI hallucinated case citation.[viii] The court ordered (1) Mr. Lord and Mr. Bello to pay the opposing side’s attorney fees, (2) they both complete a CLE on Artificial Intelligence, and (3) Mr. Lord pay the clerk $1,000;00 and Mr. Bello pay the clerk $500.00.[ix]
There are plenty of other cases from outside of Florida. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals imposed sanctions on attorney Jae Lee for citing to a non-existent case.[x] Ms. Lee was referred to the court’s Grievance Panel and ordered to provide a copy of the court’s opinion to her client.[xi]
Another case was set in Wyoming, but involved Florida attorneys who had been admitted pro hac vice. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, to wit: Rudwin Ayala, T. Michael Morgan, and Taly Goody filed Motions in Limine that cited nine cases, eight of which did not exist.[xii] The court revoked Mr. Ayala’s pro hac vice status and sanctioned him $3,000.00 to be paid to the Clerk. Mr. Morgan was sanctioned $1,000.00 to be paid to the Clerk. Ms. Goody was also sanctioned $1,000.00 to be paid to the clerk.[xiii]
In New York, subsequent to the Mata case, an attorney in another case, Victoria Hovepvan, cited to seven cases, five of which did not exist.[xiv] The court ordered her to show cause why she should not be sanctioned.[xv]
In Utah, attorney Richard Bednar filed a Petition that contained multiple cases that appeared to be created by artificial intelligence.[xvi] The court ordered Mr. Bednar to pay the opposing side’s attorney fees, (2) returned any fees to his own client and (3) make a donation to “Justice for All.”[xvii]
In California, attorney Andrew Francisco filed a motion citing to a non-existent case.[xviii] The court ordered (1) Mr. Francisco pay $1,500 to the clerk, (2) the clerk to serve a copy of the opinion on the District of Columbia Bar, and (3) the clerk serve a copy of the opinion on all the judges and magistrates in the district.[xix]
However, Mr. Francisco may have gotten off inexpensively. In a different court in California, attorney Amir Mostafavi filed a brief in which “the cases did not contain the language he proposed to quote, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, or did not exist.”[xx] The court sanctioned Mr. Mostafavi $10,000.00 payable to the clerk.[xxi] In yet another case in California, two large law firms were found to have included 27 incorrect citations and two citations to non-existent cases in their brief.[xxii] The magistrate in that case struck the briefs of the law firms of Ellis George and K&L Gates and ordered the two law firms to pay the opposing side $31,500 in fees as compensation.[xxiii]
Other courts are getting more creative. In Alabama, attorneys Matthew Reeves, William Cranford, and William Lunsford were caught (by an incarcerated inmate) of using hallucinated citations in their motions.[xxiv] The court ordered that all three attorneys provide a copy of the court’s opinion to their clients, opposing counsel, the presiding judge in every pending state or federal case in which they are attorney of record, and to every attorney in their law firm.[xxv]
Also in Alabama, U.S. District Judge Terry Moorer caught attorney James Johnson citing to several non-existent cases and attributing false quotations to others. Judge Moorer wrote an opinion that cited to 12 cases that recently had to deal with AI hallucinated citations. He went on to say “simply put, the legal community is well aware of the dangers and pitfalls of using AI shortcuts without further review and supervision.” Judge Moorer goes on to quote from another case, “Even in cases like this one, where the lawyers who cite AI hallucinations accept responsibility and apologize profusely, much damage is done. The opposing party spends resources identifying and exposing the fabrication; the court spends time reviewing materials, holding hearings, deliberating about sanctions, and explaining its rulings. The substance of the case is delayed; and public confidence about the trustworthiness of legal proceedings is diminished.” Judge Moorer continued, “Yet the insertion of bogus citations is not a mere typographical error nor the subject of reasonable debate. It is just wrong. There has been a plethora of general warnings from courts, bar associations, and the legal community at large of the risk of bogus citations generated by AI.” In conclusion, Judge Moorer sanctioned attorney James Johnson by having a copy of the opinion filed in any case in which Mr. Johnson was appearing in court and in any case in which he appears as counsel for the next 12 months and a copy of the opinion submitted to any jurisdiction where he is licensed to practice law, as well as having the opinion sent to the Alabama State Bar and to the chief judge’s of the North District and Middle District of Alabama and Mr. Johnson was referred to the Southern District of Alabama’s advisory panel to consider whether he should be removed and finally, the court imposed a sanction of $5,000 payable to the CJA Fund.[xxvi]
But perhaps the award for the most creative sanctions goes to a judge in Nevada. In yet another case involving hallucinated citations, the judge imposed the following sanctions on attorneys Tomaskin and Mann: (1) each removed as counsel in the case, (2) each pay a fine of $2,500.00 to a legal aid organization, and (3) be reported to the Nevada State Bar for conduct involving questions of honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness. However, the sanctions were suspended if they agreed to do the following: (1) write a letter to the Nevada State Bar President and Vice President informing them of their use of hallucinated citations and offer themselves for assignment on a committee, volunteer to speak at CLE courses, or write for a legal periodical about mistakes made and lessons learned and (2) write a letter to their law schools informing them of their use of hallucinated citations and offering to be a guest lecturer at a course on professional conduct in use of AI in the legal profession.[xxvii]
Those acting pro se also receive sanctions for using fake AI citations. In Florida, Carlos Gutierrez had his appeal dismissed.[xxviii] In Colorado, Alim Al-Hamim had his appeal dismissed.[xxix] And in Missouri, Jonathan Karlen, not only had his appeal dismissed, but he was also ordered to pay $10,000.00 to the respondent.[xxx]
In summation, the Florida Bar does not prohibit the use of AI. However, if you use artificial intelligence for any citations, you must check the citations to make sure they are accurate. If you file a brief or motion with a court that misquotes an existing case or cites to a non-existent case, you may find yourself being sanctioned with:
- Paying a sanction between $1,000 and $31,500;
- Being reported to your local professionalism committee;
- Being reported to the Florida Bar;
- Repaying your client your fee
- Paying for opposing counsel’s fee;
- Being reprimanded and having the reprimand sent to all the judges in your circuit and all the attorneys in your firm;
- Speaking at a CLE course or at your law school.
So either do your own research or carefully check any Ai generated citations or quotations, unless you enjoy paying sanctions and being publicly humiliated.
[i] Slicker, William, AI Hallucinations – Just Say ‘No’, Family Law Commentator, vol. XXIX, Issue 3, pp 17-19 (2024).
[ii] IBM, What are AI Hallucinations? IBM (Sept. 1, 2023) https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-hallucinations
[iii] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp 3d 443 (S.D. N.Y. 2023)
[iv] Mata, id.
[v] Clerk of the Court v. Rangel, ____ So. 3d ____, Case No. 2D2024-1772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
[vi] Clerk of the Court, id.
[vii] Multiphone Latiez America, Inc. v. Millicom International Cellular S.A. ___ F. Supp 3d ___, Case No. 25-23249-CIV (S.D. Fla. 2025),
[viii] Versant Funding, LLC. v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises, LLC, ___ F. Supp 3d ___, Case No. 17-CV–81140 (S. D. Fla. 2025),
[ix] Versant Funding, id.
[x] Park v. Kim, 91 F. 4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024)
[xi] Park, id.
[xii] Wadsworth v. Walmart, Inc. LLC, 348 F. R. D. 489 (D. Wyo 2025)
[xiii] Wadsworth v. Walmart, Inc. LLC, id.
[xiv] Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 766 F. Supp. 3d 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2025)
[xv] Benjamin, id.
[xvi] Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App. 80 ___ P. 3d ___ (Utah App. 2025)
[xvii] Garner, id
[xviii] United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp 3d 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2025)
[xix] United States v. Hayes, id.
[xx] Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., case B331918 (Cal. 2nd App Dist. 2025)
[xxi] Noland, id.
[xxii] Lacey v. State Farm, ___ F. Supp 3d ___, Case 2:24-CV-05-2025 (C.D. Cal. 2025)
[xxiii] Lacey v. State Farm, id.
[xxiv] Johnson v. Dunn, Case No. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, Case No. 2:21-cv-1701-AMM (N.D. Ala. 2024)
[xxv] Johnson, id.
[xxvi] United States of America v. McGee, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, Case No. CRIM. ACT. NO. 1:24-CR-112 and 113-TFM (S.D. Ala. 2025)
[xxvii] Commnv LLC v. Uprise, LLC, ___ P. 3d ____, Case No. CV23-02123 (Nev. 2025)
[xxviii] Guttierrez v. Guttierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
[xxix] Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128, __ P. 3d __ (Colo. App. 2024)
[xxx] Kruse v. Kruse, 592 SW 3d 43 (E.D. Mo. 2024)
